Standing Committee B

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Clause 44 - Invitation to enter premises

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 209, in clause 44, page 21, line 5, at end insert 
''the premises are a licensed family entertainment centre and''. —[Mr. Moss.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 210, in clause 44, page 21, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).

Richard Caborn: At the end of our morning sitting, I quoted clause 44(2)(b), which states that subsection (1) does not apply where
''that part is not being used in reliance on the casino premises licence when the child or young person is invited or permitted to enter.'' 
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: Given the Minister's recollection of what he said before we adjourned for lunch, I am more than happy to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Gambling

Amendments made: No. 229, in clause 45, page 21, line 15, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 230, in clause 45, page 21, line 16, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in clause 45, page 21, line 27, at end add
''or
(j) participation in any gaming which is excluded by the Secretary of State from the provisions of this Act.''.
 The amendment would add another provision to subsection (2). Subsection (1) does not apply to the use of category D gaming machines under subsection (2)(e), a point that has been well received in the industry. The amendment would strengthen that 
 provision. It is believed that the Secretary of State should have the power to exclude a game that she determines should not be regulated because of its relatively harmless nature. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to reinforce category D machines and others deemed harmless to children.

Richard Caborn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining why he believes that the amendment is necessary. However, we have achieved the right balance in respect of when young people or children should be allowed to gamble. Clause 45 makes it an offence for a 16 to 18-year-old to take part in unlawful gambling. It will not prevent young people from playing the lottery or the football pools or participating in prize gaming. It will ensure that young people are old enough to know what they are doing and to take responsibility for their actions. If 16 to 18-year-olds take part in gambling when they are not allowed to do so, they will be committing an offence.
 I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's good intentions to allow latitude for young people to undertake more gambling than the Bill allows when it gives rise to no harm, but I have not yet heard an argument that convinces me that the amendment is warranted. We believe that we have identified the gambling in which it is safe and sensible for young people to participate, and the amendment would not take us any further towards achieving that end. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to push the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Entering premises

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I apologise for detaining the Committee; I know that we want to make progress. This morning, however, we had an interesting debate about the licensing arrangements for regional casinos and what part or parts of a regional casino are covered. The Minister explained clearly that the entirety of a regional casino—all parts of the premises, including the entertainment and shopping areas and any activities taking place under that one roof—are covered by the regional casino licence. Clause 46 refers to offences that would be created by a young person entering such premises in respect of clause 44.
 During the lunch break, I had an opportunity to reflect on the answers that the Minister gave earlier. Clause 44 is referred to in clause 46, and I note that clause 44(2) clearly mentions a disapplication when
''a child or young person is permitted to enter a part of premises which are being used for a regional casino, and . . . that part is not being used in reliance on the casino premises licence when the child or young person is invited or permitted to enter.'' 
The implication—as I read it, using common sense—is that a regional casino can be built so that parts of it do not have to rely on a regional casino licence, contrary to what the Minister told us this morning. I would be grateful for clarification, because the matter has a significant impact on clause 46.

Richard Caborn: I do not think that I can explain that in any more detail than I did this morning. The regional casino in its totality, including the gambling area, is licensed. The discussion this morning was about whether one could get a sub-licence to operate category D machines.

Don Foster: The Minister has just repeated that the entirety of the premises is covered by the casino premises licence, yet clause 44(2)(b) says
''that part is not being used in reliance on the casino premises licence''. 
What part of a regional casino could be not reliant on a casino premises licence?

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman refers back to amendment No. 228, which we discussed this morning, he will find that it makes it clear that the exclusion of children applies to areas where facilities for gambling are provided. That should clear that up. The explanation on clause 46—I hope that it reassures the hon. Gentleman—is that a young person would commit an offence if he or she entered a casino, betting office, adult gaming centre or adult area of a licensed family entertainment centre. I hope that that is sufficient explanation, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Provision of facilities for gambling

Amendments made: No. 231, in clause 47, page 21, line 36, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 232, in clause 47, page 21, line 37, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Employment to provide facilities for gambling

Amendments made: No. 233, in clause 48, page 22, line 7, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'. 
 No. 234, in clause 48, page 22, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in clause 48, page 22, line 11, at end add
'or
(f) category D machines only.'.

Peter Pike: With this we may consider the following: Amendment No. 8, in clause 56, page 24, line 4, at end insert
''with intent to deprave or corrupt that child or young person.''. 
Amendment No. 9, in clause 56, page 24, line 4, at end insert 
'', provided that no offence of this kind may in any event be committed by a parent of the child or young person or by anyone in the role in loco parentis to any child or young person.''. 
Clause 56 stand part. 
 New clause 10—Use of Category D gaming machines by children and young persons— 
 ''(1) A person commits an offence if he invites, causes or allows a child or young person to use a Category D gaming machine. (2) A young person commits an offence if he gambles on a Category D gaming machine. (3) An exception is made to subsections (1) and (2) where— (a) the value of the prize falls within the limits for Category D gaming machines as defined by regulations under section 220, and (b) the nature of the prize is non-monetary or non-redeemable for prizes.''.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 148 simply adds an extra paragraph to subsection (2). Clause 45 deals with offences of young people gambling, and it disapplies the use of category D gaming machines. Clause 48 deals with offences of the employment of young people to provide facilities for gambling, and a reference to ''category D machines only'' in subsection (2) would make it clear that there is no offence in the provision of facilities in connection with category D machines. That would make it consistent with the earlier clause, which allows children to gamble on category D machines. Our amendment would make it clear that there is not an offence where a child or young person is employed and there are category D machines.
 We have the opportunity to discuss whether clause 56 should stand part of the Bill. I tabled an amendment to delete the entire clause, but it was not accepted.

Peter Pike: Order. Amendments that delete clauses are never accepted because that question is always put in the stand part debate. We are debating whether clause 56 should stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: Thank you, Mr. Pike.
 The issue on category D machines is very simple. The Government propose to remove them from a whole swathe of premises. I am told that there are currently permits for 6,000 premises such as cafes and fish and chip shops. Although the Government will remove category D machines from them, it will still allow them in motorway service stations. It is difficult to understand why that is the case. 
 The argument is about supervision, but there is as little supervision in motorway service stations as in the local cafe or fish and chip shop. The Government should explain why they have seen fit to go down that road, given that there does not seem to be much evidence to support the idea that category D machines are in any way damaging to young people. Recently, the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the hon. Member for somewhere.

Don Foster: Cannock Chase.

Malcolm Moss: Thank you. The letter was to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). That letter stated:
 ''The Government is committed to taking an evidence-based approach to all gambling issues. As you know, low-value gaming machines have been available in amusement arcades for many years, and there has never been any compelling evidence that it is harmful (either immediately or in later life) for children to be able to play low-value gaming machines''. 
We understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will publish a review by independent academics that supports the view that there is no evidence of harm. If there is no such evidence, why is a ban warranted in the locations that I have mentioned? 
 After a thorough analysis of 170 submissions and 17 oral evidence sessions, the Joint Committee found that there was no evidence of a causal link between category D machines and problem gambling. There is a lack of clarity and consistency on the Government's part. They are allowing the machines to continue in family entertainment centres, but they are proposing some changes in the value of both the cash and non-cash prizes. 
 One key area relates to difference. At the moment, a non-cash prize can be up to the value of £8 and a person can use a crane machine to pick up a cuddly toy that is worth about that sum. In future, though, that will be banned; the maximum value of such a cuddly toy will be reduced to £5. I ask a simple question: do children know the value of the toy that they are trying to grab with the crane? I suspect not. They are drawn to the toy and its attractiveness—be it a teddy bear or something else. 
 The reasoning behind dropping the figure from £8 to £5 is lost on the industry and, I suspect, most of the Committee. Again, the Minister must explain to the Committee why the difference of £3 in the value of an article—be it a cuddly toy or something else—will make all the difference between producing a whole generation of problem gamblers who are hooked on this sort of thing at an early age and the status quo. Both the Secretary of State and the Department seem to indicate that they do not have an issue with that in terms of problem gambling. 
 Clause 56 allows the Secretary of State, at some future date, to re-examine the issue and, potentially, introduce a ban on category D machines in family entertainment centres. That is the sword that is hanging over the industry, and a clause that gives the Secretary of State immense powers to make future changes that will decimate its businesses is no comfort to it. 
 Family entertainment centres spend about £100 million a year employing some 8,600 people and they support many more people indirectly in their local economies. They are critical to many of our seaside towns, particularly the smaller ones. They operate on tight margins; the operating profit is about 6.4 per cent. on average. More than 70 per cent. of the 104,000 machines in family entertainment centres are category D. The combination of the reserve power hanging over family entertainment centres and the proposed 
 reduction in stakes and prizes will have a serious impact on the viability of many of them. The Henley Centre's economic and social impact study of the Gambling Bill, published in February, found that a third of the centres were likely to close. 
 The adverse impacts would be two-fold. A blight would be put on any significant new long-term investment in family entertainment centres and the proposed reduction in non-cash prizes would degrade their marketability and customer value. The industry believes that there is a double pincer movement to attack their viability and their future. No one will invest and businesses will decrease in value. No one will be able to sell a business at what was the going rate a little while ago because of the uncertainty of clause 56 and the potential for the Secretary of State to make sweeping changes to the availability of category D machines in such centres. 
 It is important that the Minister explains to the Committee where the consistency lies in the Government's thinking. We know that they are spinning the Bill as a protection Bill: it is to protect children and the vulnerable. As I have pointed out in earlier debates, that is at variance with their opening up the top end of the pyramid, through regional casinos, and allowing something like 20 to 40 mega-casinos each with 1,250 category A machines, exclusive to them. There is potential for more than 50,000 of those new machines, which, in places such as Australia, have been proven to lead to problem gambling. At that end of the scale there will be problems, but to date there is no evidence of problems with category D machines, which are at the children's end of the scale. 
 It is illogical for the Government to argue that the main thrust of the Bill is about protection when on the one hand those new machines are coming in—and there is no evidence from this country on what will result from that introduction—and on the other the Government are bearing down on businesses that have been around for many years and are an integral part of the entertainment and leisure facilities in our seaside towns. Perversely, there is no evidence of any damage to our young people as a result of their playing machines in family entertainment centres. 
 Common sense ought to prevail on this issue. The Government have to accept—as they have, at the top end of the pyramid, with regional casinos—that common sense indicates that if there is no problem there is no need to legislate to change things. It would be helpful to the industry, which employs an awful lot of people throughout the country, to have a clear steer from the Government at this point. Let us not wait until the Bill goes to the other place for consideration, or even later, for such things to be sorted out. Let us make it clear to the industry now that the Government recognise their problems; that the uncertainty derives from the wording in the Bill, particularly in clause 56; that that is damaging to the industry; and that today the Minister will make a clear statement that he recognises those concerns and is prepared to do something about them.

Don Foster: I have a little difficulty with the lead amendment; it seems somewhat superfluous. Clause 51 already prevents under-18s from performing any functions on premises with category D machines. One has to assume that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is using the amendment to probe the Minister and to lead to other discussions as he did, quite correctly, in relation to category D machines.
 I put on record my apology to the hon. Gentleman for misleading him because I am reliably informed that I gave him the wrong name of the Member who received the letter from the Secretary of State. It was the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), rather than the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. 
 We are aware that clause 48 creates an offence of employing children and young persons, with some exceptions, to provide facilities for gambling. Clause 56 gives the Secretary of State powers by order to 
''create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child or young person below a specified age to use a Category D gaming machine.'' 
Category D machines will continue to haunt us during the passage of the Bill. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire drew our attention to his concerns, which my colleagues and I share, about the Government's proposals to remove category D machines from various premises, including fish and chip shops and taxi cab offices. We know, even from the Government's own regulatory impact assessment, that if that action is taken, it could lead to the loss of some 600 of those premises. All hon. Members may wish to think about how happy they would be to see some of those important facilities lost to their local communities as a result of this measure. If there were clear, convincing evidence that that would protect young people, that might be another matter. I shall return to the issue of evidence in a minute. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly mentioned his astonishment—which, again, I share—that the Government are saying that category D machines will be removed from premises such as fish and chip shops and taxi cab offices, but will continue to be used in motorway service stations and bowling alleys. That is slightly odd, bearing it in mind that there would, one suspects, be greater supervision in the first category of premises than in the second. Nevertheless, we will have an opportunity to return to that matter and discuss it in more detail during debates on later clauses to which I have tabled amendments.

Peter Pike: We will not be getting there today.

Don Foster: At the rate we are going, I doubt it very much.
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also mentioned the Government's plans to change the prizes and stake money for category D machines. That is surprising and I find little evidence to back up the measures that the Government intend to introduce. It is particularly surprising when we hear that the triennial review, which would have been a more appropriate time to consider the evidence and make 
 decisions on this matter, is to be postponed for at least several years. Again, we have an opportunity to return to those issues a little later. 
 I have two concerns about this group of amendments. First, clause 56 is a huge sword of Damocles hanging over many machine operators, family entertainment centres, seaside resorts and the type of facilities provided by organisations such as Butlins. Secondly, I am concerned about the categorisation of category D machines. We need to consider whether there ought to be a sub-category. 
 Clause 56—the sword of Damocles—is important for many organisations in this country. The Government are right to say that it is vital to protect young children. That is clearly enshrined in the licensing objectives in clause 1. However, where we reserve powers like those in clause 56, we must be certain of the likely impact of exercising them. The sector that I am describing is important: it employs 82,000 people, generates £1.76 billion in tax revenues and owns approximately 1,000 family entertainment centres, 850 adult gaming centres and many businesses that supply, operate, manufacture and distribute gaming machines, and it has already been hard hit by foreign competition. We know, for example, that some of the British gaming machine manufacturers have lost their business to America. There are real concerns in that sector. 
 The Secretary of State must have powerful arguments to justify why she should hold on to the reserve powers described in clause 56. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said, it is odd that the Secretary of State is retaining powers in respect of category D machines, but does not have similar reserve powers for category A machines. Category D machines are well tried and tested in this country. There is a fairly wide body of research evidence on those machines—although it has produced rather mixed results—whereas category A machines are totally untried and untested in this country, and many Committee members have serious concerns about the impact that they will have on the increased number of people affected by problem gambling. 
 The Secretary of State's reserve powers would have made much more sense to me if they applied to category A, rather than category D, machines. We already know from that letter to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth that the Secretary of State is clear that the Government are committed to taking an evidence-based approach to all gambling issues. She went on to say that low-value gaming machines have been available in amusement arcades for many years, and there has never been any compelling evidence that it is harmful, either immediately or in later life, for children to play them. 
 That said, I accept that we must look carefully at the evidence as to whether there could be any harm from category D machines. Unless that is convincingly demonstrated, I see no reason for the Secretary of State to hold on to the reserve powers. If she does, she will place in serious jeopardy many of the businesses 
 that I referred to earlier. If they are not certain that they will be allowed to carry on, because the Secretary of State might use the reserve powers at some point, they will have difficulty in asking their banks for money for the additional investment that they wish to make. That will make it extremely difficult for them to continue. 
 The evidence is mixed. I am sure that all Committee members have looked with considerable interest at the wide range of evidence that was made available to the Joint Committee and at that in the Budd report, and at research including that by Sue Fisher in 1998 and Professor Jim Orford in 2003. Some will even have done as I have, and gone back to the 1987 Home Office research, which suggested that there was ambivalence about the amount of harm that category D machines would do. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that he was waiting with anticipation for the Government to publish their detailed review of all the research. I am pleased to tell him that they have already done so, and it makes fascinating reading. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who accuses me of spending my time sitting up reading Coin Slot International night after night, will be delighted to know that last night I found even that not quite as riveting as ''Young People and Gambling in Britain: A systematic and critical review of the research literature relating to gaming machine, lottery and pools coupons practice by children and young people under 18''. I know that he will have read it as well—it is fascinating. 
 That document tells us that there is a lack of substantial data on the prevalence of gambling and problem gambling among the under-18s in the United Kingdom. It goes on to say that it is not possible to give reliable prevalence figures on problem gambling in childhood, but that studies with the most rigorous design, using large national random samples and recent coverage, find the lowest rates. Some, it says, believe that the younger the onset of play, the more serious gambling problems are likely to become, although there is insufficient evidence to make definitive judgments about that hypothesis. It suggests that a detailed longitudinal study is required. 
 The evidence is mixed, but it is increasingly clear that there are differences between the category D machines from which people get money and those from which they win prizes. The evidence, limited though it is, seems to suggest that those on which people gamble for pocket money are more addictive than the grabbers and the amusements with prizes. If that is the case, and if the Government are most concerned about those that give money, it might be sensible for any sword of Damocles that there is likely to be to hang over the category D machines about which there is the greater concern—those that give cash prizes. In that category, I refer particularly to the machines that emulate the fruit machines that are played by adults—''fruities'', as they are sometimes called. It is on those that there is the greatest evidence. Our amendment in this string gives the Government an opportunity to consider whether they will retain some 
 form of sword of Damocles, as covered by clause 56. That should relate only to category D machines, about which there is greater concern than the others.

Kevan Jones: In his extensive research—he has obviously done much night-time reading, to the displeasure of Mrs. Foster—has the hon. Gentleman come across anyone who has actually won a prize on a grabber machine?

Don Foster: Forgive me if I stray briefly, Mr. Pike, but the hon. Gentleman was clearly not present a few days ago at the annual general meeting of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, whe, he will he delighted to know, the Minister, Lord McIntosh, was awarded not one but two such prizes. He received two cuddly teddy bears, one allegedly valued at £5 and a larger one valued at £8.

Richard Page: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that they were standard machines that are available at other arcades around the country?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I merely refer to the fact that the Minister in another place was the recipient of two cuddly teddy bears. I assure hon. Members that in the photographs that appeared in the press he looked delighted to receive them.

Tony Banks: This is a fascinating subject. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps Mrs. Foster could use a grabber machine? She might get his attention, and he obviously knows a lot about them. Is there a particular number of toys that such machines have to pay out?

Peter Pike: I am sure Mrs. Foster did very well when she grabbed Mr. Foster.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, and you, Mr. Pike, would have been tempted by a sedentary intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who wanted to know which clause—spelled ''claws''—related to the teddy bears. I wanted to get that on the record. He tempts me to move away from the detail, but one of the differences between the machines—or at least some of them; not all of them, I entirely accept—is that the grabbers require an element of skill, whereas the ''fruities'' certainly do not. One could argue that there is a difference, but rather than separating category D machines into two types and having a sword of Damocles hanging over at least one type—if that is the only way we can win, that should be the route that we follow—I should prefer it by far if the Committee voted against clause 56 to take away that sword of Damocles, which is hanging over a very large number of businesses in the country. There is little or no evidence to justify the clause.

Peter Pike: Just before we move on, and so that everyone is absolutely clear, what Mr. Foster said at the end was very helpful. I shall put the question on clause 56 when we reach it, but there will be no debate then; the debate will take place now.

Nick Hawkins: That is a particularly helpful introduction, Mr. Pike, because I was among those who put their signature to the amendment seeking to delete clause 56 altogether. I also tabled a group of amendments that were not selected for debate, so it would be wrong of me to talk about them. However, the Committee must consider carefully whether it is appropriate that clause 56 should stay in the Bill. I considered whether we could amend clause 56 to make it more acceptable. In the end—despite the fact that I tabled a couple of amendments to it, which were not selected—I concluded that the best way of dealing with the issues would be to delete clause 56. However, I agree with some of the serious points made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
 I should draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for West Ham has just made his first contribution to the debate since we heard the sad news—I mean that genuinely—that he will not be in the House after the next election. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has always been a good cross-party Friend: he may be retiring, but he has never been shy. His intervention on the hon. Member for Bath is typical of the wit that he has shown throughout his parliamentary career.

Julie Kirkbride: I, too, ask the Government to reconsider clause 56 because of the damage that it will do many legitimate businesses that operate in areas of the country in which it is difficult to do so, such as the holiday industry in many of our coastal resorts. Gaming arcades, which attract children, are often the lifeblood of such resorts, and they feel threatened by this legislation.
 It is hard to understand why the Government want to be so draconian. I have asked on several occasions—once of the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House—what evidence the Government have to suggest that category D machines have had a deleterious effect on young people, or that people have been encouraged to pursue a life of gambling after being seduced by such machines in their youth. The Government have offered no evidence whatever that such light gaming is dangerous to the nation's youth. I used to enjoy playing seaside machines and was utterly fascinated by drop the tuppenny. Since then, apart from the occasional flutter at the races—even then, the minimum amount that the Tote will allow—I have had no desire to gamble, yet I found playing those machines an enjoyable pastime, especially when it was raining outside. 
 The Government have given no justification for the measure, nor have they shown a cause and effect between category D gaming machines and any impact on young people. In the absence of clear evidence of such damage, it is hard for the Government to justify this outrageous attack on legitimate businesses that operate across the nation, particularly in seaside resorts. 
 Does the Minister realise the great distress that his provision—

Richard Caborn: Oh, come on.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister says, ''Oh, come on''—[Interruption.] Forgive me, I must not have a conversation with the Minister because we must address the Chair.
 I, certainly, have been written to by people from several gaming arcades across the country and been asked to plead with the Government to reconsider this matter. Those operating arcades, particularly seaside arcades, are worried that because of a Government whim, or because of a story that has nothing to do with gambling by children, but which may be a result of the Government's legislation in a wider context, problem gaming will become the big issue about which the nation's newspapers, and therefore the Government, are truly exercised and that a whipping boy will then be found to try to allay public concern. The most obvious use of this clause is to provide a whipping boy. 
 The Minister is more than happy to have casinos proliferate across the country, although we have made some progress on that, but they will undoubtedly cause problem gambling. We are likely to end up in a situation—like that in Australia—in which the cry goes up, ''Britain faces a problem gambling issue; what are we going to do about it?'' I know what we will do about it: the Government will say, ''Ah, well, there is this little provision somewhere in the Gambling Act that we enacted some time ago, which says that we will stop children doing category D gaming altogether. That is what we will do to solve the nation's gambling crisis.'' We can see that happening, because it is symptomatic of the sort of thing that has happened all along, given the Government's desire to show that they are listening and their tendency to do something completely counter-productive and unfair to other people's interests but which gives them a headline in the newspapers of the day to say that they are tackling a problem. 
 The industry fears that the clause will be used in that way as and when we have a bigger problem with gaming across the nation. That is extremely unfair on legitimate businesses, which currently operate with no problems and have done so over the 25 years or so since I was last in one of their establishments. There is no reason why this Damocletian sword should hang over the heads of those operating them. It will be a disincentive to investment in providing new facilities in seaside areas and is a great worry—whatever the Minister says and however much he likes to mock—for businesses that are working hard in difficult circumstances in seaside resorts across the nation. Creating successful businesses that keep those resorts afloat is difficult anyway, without the Government presenting an additional hazard. I very much hope that, despite the mockery, the Minister will think again.

Peter Pike: Order. For clarification, let me say to Mr. Hawkins that alongside clause 56 stand part, we are debating amendments Nos. 8 and 9; those amendments have been selected. If he indicates that he wants to vote on them, we can have a vote at the
 appropriate stage. All I am saying is that when we reach clause 56, there will not be a further debate. I want to be certain that that is clear.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: Thank you.

Richard Page: I want to speak briefly on clause 56, which states:
 ''The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting'' 
and so on. It would be most helpful if there were some guidance on the triggers that might cause the Secretary of State to say that he or she wanted to create an offence of permitting a child to operate a gaming machine. When we took evidence in the scrutiny Committee, Lord McIntosh of Haringey was asked whether he felt that more steps should be taken to educate children about the dangers of gambling. He replied with an unequivocal yes. He felt that there should be guidance in schools and waxed lyrical about the gambler's fallacy. He said that we would be astonished by how many people think that the outcome of the last event has an influence on the outcome of the current or next event and do not understand the independence of events. That is absolutely true. I know that the Minister knows all about it, being intimately connected and knowledgeable on these matters. 
 I would like to quote the words of one or two witnesses whom we examined on this matter. These are people who have spent time looking into the problems of gambling and how they might be negated. Professor Orford makes a point about the rate for adolescents and cites various surveys that have taken place here and in the United States showing that 
''there is a negative correlation between age and problem or pathological gambling. The 16-24 year olds had the highest rate in our group, and if you take that down to the group we did not look at (because they were under 16s), adolescents, all the evidence is that the prevalence rate there is the highest.'' 
Professor Orford then refers to other evidence, produced by a lady called Susan Fisher, which shows that among 10,000 pupils aged between 12 and 15 in 100 schools across England and Wales, there is a prevalence rate of more than 5 per cent. A number of factors lie behind clause 56. 
 We all want to protect the children of this nation, but we want to see that the Minister has a clearly defined pathway whereby, should any offence be created of permitting a child or young person below a specified age to operate a category D machine, we should know what it is. It should not happen to be a knee-jerk action by a Secretary of State who wishes to grab a few headlines because the Government may be unpopular in the polls, or something like that. We are now seeing a powerful law and order campaign, for example, and one wonders why we are suddenly having that? We have to be careful that we do not start to introduce measures without a proper route to understanding why and how a measure might be introduced. 
 Professor Griffiths said that he did
''a study way back in 1990 showing that those kids who started playing slot-machines at the age of nine years of age or below were significantly more likely to have problems than those who started at the age of 12 or above.'' 
He went on to say: 
 ''The interesting thing and, I suppose, the good news for adolescents is we know that with all, what I would call, risky but rewarding behaviours, the peak use, whether for drugs, alcohol or gambling, does peak in adolescence and young adulthood. You will find a lot of adolescents will mature out and spontaneously remit, and when they take on other things in their life, job, first baby, marriage . . . problem gambling will often disappear.'' 
We have to be clear that we are not going to introduce any offence that is of a transitory nature and that we will cause no long-term damage.

Bob Russell: We have heard a fair amount about seaside family amusement arcades and so on. However, small cafes, taxi booking offices and so on in inland areas are also affected. If the legislation were to pass, I suggest to the Minister, some companies would go out of business in the fine city of Sheffield because they rely on the amusement machines to make the difference between loss and profit.
 I hope that support and protection can be found in the other place for the indigenous low-key family entertainment gambling areas, which are predominately at the seaside. I am sorry that the Minister is yawning, but it has been suggested that for each major casino, the equivalent number of machines—1,250—will wipe out 600 small local businesses, with everything that goes with that. I wonder whether the Minister is complacent about businesses in Sheffield and elsewhere going under because of an ill-thought-out, ill-judged measure.

Don Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government, who pride themselves on consultation, have not consulted with the overarching organisation that represents all those bodies, the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, and have, so far as I am aware, refused to meet its representatives? They have not even met representatives of fish and chip shops.

Bob Russell: I was not aware of that, but I am not really surprised. I think that provisions have been made up as the Bill has gone along. This one is a tiny aspect of a major Bill, but it is of vital importance to small firms and seaside arcades. Small neighbourhood businesses will be affected: fish and chip shops and so on—although I have heard it said that in Sheffield the pie is more of a gamble than the slot machine in the corner of the shop. If the clause goes through, many companies will go out of business. That is a serious matter. I regret the Minister's complacency and the fact that he finds the issue amusing. I suspect that many businesses will not share that view, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail in the other place.

Joan Humble: A week ago, I had an interesting meeting with amusement arcade operators in Fleetwood, who had understandable concerns about the clause. However, they did not share the
 apocalyptic vision of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). In fact, their concern was less about the clause than about the proliferation of small and large casinos. They thought that their amusement arcades really would close down if there were casinos on every street corner.
 The concerns of those operators seemed to predate Second Reading and to arise from the publicity that preceded it. However, operators were reassured by the Secretary of State's statement on Second Reading that the Government were committed to the future of family amusement arcades. I was pleased about that, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconfirm that that is the Government's position. 
 The representations that we have received contain clear advice from people who have real concerns about the impact of gambling on children. On the other hand, we are all aware that gambling provides jobs and adult entertainment. In my opinion, it can also provide fairly harmless pastimes for children. Like everyone else who has taken part in the debate, I have tried to win a teddy bear, but I have never won one. Perhaps I should challenge all the amusement arcades along the Fylde coast, because I feel sorely tempted to try every single one of them to win a teddy.

Nick Hawkins: Was the hon. Lady lucky enough to attend Blackpool pleasure beach when she was the distinguished Chairman of the social services committee of Lancashire county council? At the time, I had the honour of representing the constituency that contained the pleasure beach and its amusement arcades. On one occasion, all the machines were rearranged for charity, and that was the only time I succeeded in working one of the grabber machines and winning a soft toy.

Joan Humble: I am not sure how I can follow that. If I go round saying I will play the machines, but only if they are rearranged so I can win, operators will not be very pleased with me. Nevertheless, there is a serious point, because we need to achieve a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we have to reassure people with genuine concerns about the impact of the measures on gambling and especially on children. On the other hand, we have to recognise the role that category D machines and amusement arcades play, especially in a seaside economy. The Government probably have the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will reassure my constituents again.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Lady thinks that the Government have got it right. Perhaps she can explain the difference between an £8 cuddly toy and a £5 cuddly toy.

Richard Caborn: It's £3!

Joan Humble: I think that my right hon. Friend has answered the hon. Gentleman, although the Government should perhaps look at the matter. If I were ever to win one of these things, would I really notice the difference between a £5 one and an £8 one? Would I want the £8 one more? Actually, I probably
 would want the £8 one or one worth even more than that, but that is a dangerous route to go down so I will not.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for agreeing with our proposition that all is not well with family entertainment centres or with the Government's proposals to attack the value of the prize rather than the cash payout. BACTA agrees that a 10p stake with a £5 payout is acceptable, but it takes issue with the Government over the value of the prize being reduced from £8 to £5. When she was talking to her constituents in Fleetwood, did they make that point to her?

Joan Humble: They did not labour that point. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, when Sir Alan Budd produced his report, we had a long debate on the appropriate value of prizes and stakes for amusement arcades that admit children. The key issue with this clause is not that but the residual power that the Secretary of State has taken on this matter. I seek reassurance that it is residual and that the Secretary of State is including it in the Bill because there may be a moment in the future when she or her successor will want to readdress the issue. I want an assurance that the Government are fully committed to the continuance of family amusement arcades, which have a vital role in our seaside economy.

Don Foster: I am delighted that the hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, is expressing genuine concern for family entertainment centres and similar organisations. Given that she is merely seeking assurances from the Minister that the powers are reserved and will be used only in extreme circumstances—those were not her words but she implied them—does she not accept that even if she got that assurance, the clause would still put a huge blight on family entertainment centres and the firms that operate them? Therefore, there is a continuing danger that closures are likely. Would it not be better to persuade the Minister to delete the entire clause?

Joan Humble: I am certainly looking forward to hearing the Minister's response, but I repeat that the concern of those who contacted me directly was much more to do with the general proliferation of gaming machines if there was an unlimited number of small and large casinos on every high street. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister, during his announcement on regional casinos, said that the Government were examining ways of restricting small and large casinos. That was a key point raised with me.
 When people are concerned about their livelihood, it is difficult to offer them reassurance. That is why I am asking the Minister to do exactly that, and I look forward to his response.

Richard Caborn: I shall answer one or two of the questions asked before I give the reasoning for the amendments and for clause 56.
 We met representatives of BACTA on a number of occasions before and after the policy was announced, and that consultation continues. We have never been approached by representatives of fish and chip shops, but if they want to come along, I am more than willing to meet them—perhaps not all of them.

Don Foster: As the Minister is offering the open door of consultation to fish and chip shop operators, will he offer to meet representatives of BACTA?

Richard Caborn: BACTA representatives know that we have an open door because they have been coming in and out of it for the past two years; there is no problem with BACTA. More importantly, as fish and chip shops were raised and as the open door of consultation is the hallmark of this Government, I invite their representatives to come and see us.
 I am sure that Mrs. Foster will be pleased to know that grabber machines are random. That is why they are gaming machines. As for the doomsday scenario painted by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, I think that her previous profession took over there. I was probably more factual than she was in some of her descriptions of what might happen if the Bill is implemented in full. As Minister for Sport and Tourism, I can assure the Committee that seaside resorts commend the Government for the increase in tourism that is taking place. It is important to encourage more tourism with the greater disposable income that it brings. I was in Whitby a couple of weekends ago and I went into one of these arcades with my grandchildren. A ride on a Bambi machine cost 50p. I put in a few 2p coins which I found quite entertaining.

Tony Banks: To save me wasting my pension in these arcades when I have time to spare, will my hon. Friend clarify whether grabber machines are random? If so, how is the grabber randomised? That is the important point. We need to know that. If the machines are random they should pay out a certain percentage of soft cuddly toys. I need to know that for my future.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend's future hangs on a grabber. I will try to elicit that information from those who do all the research into grabber machines. I am told that they are programmed to drop.

Tony Banks: A bit like my balls.

Richard Caborn: That may have to be left off the record.

Richard Page: I shall complain if it is.

Richard Caborn: On the question of £5 or £8 prizes, we are also reducing the maximum prizes for redemption machines. We are bringing the whole lot into line.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to the skill involved in playing a grabber machine. In fact there is no skill in it at all; it is a completely random process. Should not she stop trying to perfect her technique of grabbing a teddy?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend might have a point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood wants a teddy, the best thing to do is probably to go to a shop and buy one. I am sure that she will take that sound advice.
 I appreciate the sentiment behind amendment No. 148. We agree that children should be able to get jobs in family entertainment centres, race courses and motorway service stations where there will be gaming machines—no doubt lots of children have weekend or summer jobs in such places—and we make that possible in clause 51. However, I do not think it right that children should be involved in the supply, maintenance or operation of any kind of gaming machine. Although they have low prizes, category D machines still offer gambling to children and adults. Employment that is connected to a gaming machine is an adult responsibility, not one for children.

Nick Hawkins: If I heard correctly, the Minister just said that the Government make the employment of young people for holiday or other jobs possible in clause 51. That clause simply says that it creates two offences. It does not create any exception to those offences by allowing children to be employed on holiday jobs. One of my sons had a holiday job working for Blackpool Pleasure Beach in my old constituency and I cannot see how the clause, by creating two new offences, would allow that.

Richard Caborn: Under clause 51 children can be employed in premises with gaming machines as long as they do not interfere with the machines, which is the point that I am explaining. That should clarify the provisions in clauses 50 and 51.
 Although low prize category D machines offer gambling to children and adults, employment connected to gaming machines is an adult responsibility, not one for children. Children should be able to man a change desk, for example, in an arcade or family entertainment centre, but if there is a need to interfere with a machine, the under-18 employee should call an adult supervisor.

Malcolm Moss: What the Minister is saying is helpful. Reading clause 51(1), I believe that the connecting word ''and'' is so important. There is an offence if the child is employed where there are category A, B, C or D machines and he is required
''in the course of his employment to perform a function in connection with the gaming machine''. 
Will the Minister be a little clearer about what performing a function in connection with the machine actually means? Does it mean that the child is not allowed to clean it or take it apart to mend it? Does he have to stay completely clear of it?

Peter Pike: Order. We are not actually debating clause 51. I call the Minister.

Richard Caborn: I reiterate what I said earlier: I do not think it right that a child should be involved in the supply, maintenance or operation of any kind of gaming machine. I am sure that that is the situation in
 all well run arcades now, and the Bill allows that to continue. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 148.
 Amendment No. 8 misunderstands what the Government are seeking to achieve with the reserve powers in clause 56. That clause exists to give the Government the power to act if there is compelling evidence of harm from children's use of category D machines. Some academics, such as Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent university, believe that children are harmed by using these low prize machines. We do not think that there is good enough evidence to suggest that we should stop children using them, but we remain cautious, and that is why we have clause 56. 
 If there is evidence of harm, we can introduce an age limit. We do not plan to use the power now or in the foreseeable future, but we think it right to keep it in reserve for the protection of our children. If the power were used, the amendment would not make sense. Our judgment will be based on evidence of harm from using the machines, not on the intentions of persons making the machines available—of course machine providers do not try to deprave or corrupt children.

Julie Kirkbride: I am sorry that the Minister does not recognise the damage that will be done to gaming centres if the Government insist on keeping the clause in the Bill. Will he promise to offer compensation if irrefutable evidence arises and the Government ban arcades from allowing children to use category D machines?

Richard Caborn: The answer is no, at this stage. If the case is proven, the conditions of how it is proven and how the change is implemented would be open for discussion. I would be foolish to make a statement on that at this stage.

Julie Kirkbride: As the provision is provisional, would it not be more appropriate to have fresh legislation in light of compelling evidence in future? We could then assess the situation and treat fairly those businesses who had operated in good faith, investing only to find that the Government were pulling the rug from under their feet.

Richard Caborn: That is one part of the argument, but there is another part. As I said, some academics and others have concerns. We are the only country in the world that allows its young people to play gaming machines. To date, the evidence, although it is thin and anecdotal in places, shows that it does not harm our young people in the long term. However, some believe that it does, so we believe in acting prudently and being able to use those powers. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that to trigger the use of the powers, we would need evidence of harm from prevalence studies and other research. We would also take advice from the gambling commission before any change was made, so there would be a wide-ranging debate.
 The views of those with genuine concerns are not being taken on board, and we want to make sure that there is further research into the subject. The hon. Member for Bath acknowledges that the research available to date is pretty sketchy. We have come out firmly on the side of the arcade. We believe that the evidence is not there, but it is prudent to put the power to act in the Bill in case the issue comes up. 
 Amendment No. 9 is about the role of parents. The Government cannot accept it, and I shall give an example of why we believe that it is wrong. For the sake of argument, let us say that an age limit of 12 was in place for the use of category D machines. Before the hon. Member for Bath runs off to Coin Slot International magazine, let me emphasise that this is merely an example, an hypothesis for the sake of argument. If a nine-year-old then played a machine in an arcade with a parent or responsible adult at their side, and the adult did not stop the child from playing the machine, despite seeing the information in the arcade about the age limit, it should be the parent who commits the offence. I do not see how we can let parents off their responsibility in the way that the amendment would. 
 If I take my teenage son into a betting office, I am straight away committing an offence. Why should the same rule not apply to gaming machines? Of course, there are defences in the Bill for those who might not be expected to know that a child was of a certain age. Clause 60 provides a defence of reasonable belief about a person's age, but that defence is obviously for the operator, not parents. We want parents to play their role in protecting children from harmful gambling, particularly in relation to children's use of the internet, but also in relation to gaming machines. There are responsibilities on parents under the Bill, and we think that that is right. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) not to press his amendment. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for tabling new clause 10 because it allows me the opportunity to explain why the Government think it right for children to continue to be allowed to play on all category D machines. We considered carefully the many representations received from groups of people concerned about children using gaming machines at all. We are unique in the world in allowing young people to play gaming machines of the type of category D. For many years, children have been using low-price gaming machines, which, under the present law, are described as amusement with prizes. 
 I acknowledge, of course, that children using slot machines at all is unusual in comparison with most other regimes, but to date we have not received a sufficiently compelling body of evidence suggesting that the use of those machines by under-18-year-olds causes significant persistent harm or has any effect on the overall level of problem gambling. The Joint Committee considered the matter very carefully, and it reached exactly the same conclusion. However, we remain vigilant, and we are reflecting that in the Bill. We have looked at the industry and we trust it to 
 sponsor more research. We will look carefully at the results of the prevalence studies that we intend to sponsor every three years. We need to be careful, but the new clause is an overreaction, and I ask the hon. Member for Bath not to press it.

Don Foster: The Minister said that the Government intend to continue with prevalence studies. I have already referred to the document, produced by the Government earlier this month, that summarises all the research evidence. The Minister will be well aware that it makes a series of recommendations about studies that are needed in addition to the existing prevalence study arrangements. Do the Government intend to adopt the variety of recommendations in the document?

Richard Caborn: Yes, and the role of the gambling commission will be important in that respect, as will the ongoing regulation and government of the industry. There has been an element of scaremongering in the debate this afternoon. However—I underline this, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—we are saying clearly that we believe that arcades with category D machines are an important part of the economy, particularly in seaside resorts. Indeed, they are a part of our history and culture at the seaside. We want to maintain them as part of that structure.
 It is important that we respond to those who have concerns by conducting objective, transparent studies that will contribute to public debate. We are putting in place a regulator—the gambling commission. There will be ongoing regulation of the industry; there will be no sharp shocks in the system. Decisions will be taken after consultation; they will evolve. 
 I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I will not deal with clause 56 until we come to it.

Peter Pike: Order. There will not be any further debate on clause 56 stand part.

Malcolm Moss: No one is disagreeing with some of the fundamentals of the Minister's case. We accept that the Government have to be vigilant, and we have no problem with tri-annual reviews and research; that is in everyone's interests.
 However, how can the Secretary of State justify clause 56 on the basis of regulatory completeness? That clause focuses on category D and age limits. There are just under 1,000 family entertainment centres, and 70 per cent. of the machines in them are category D machines. If at some future date a Secretary of State were to alter the age limits of people who could play those machines, that would at a stroke attack the heart of those businesses. I heard what the Minister said; he is very keen that they should be retained in our seaside resorts, such as Blackpool. We all want that. However, he is missing the point. Because the clause deals explicitly with age limits for category D machines, there can be no ambiguity; this is a direct attack on the raison d'etre of a huge number of businesses. 
 We could go along with the Government. If the case were made that we need an enabling clause to revisit much of this subject at a future date, we would happily agree. There would need to be a review of such matters as the impact of category A machines in casinos and the impact of the fixed-odds betting terminals. Taking a holistic view, we have no argument against periodic reviews and careful research into such areas. 
 There might be less impact on the businesses we are talking about if there were a clause that covered all the machines—all category A, B, C and D machines—and all the institutions, and which enabled the Secretary of State to revisit the matter in the future. It would also be helpful if a clause set out the compelling evidence and the true independence of the research to be done so that there was no question about the Government's intention.

Julie Kirkbride: I agree with my hon. Friend's point about applying all that to all the provisions of the Bill. However, we know how this place works. Is it not likely that, with the Government encouraging problem gambling with its wider casino provisions, they will find a scapegoat by attacking those businesses that allow gambling among young people, saying, ''Well, we are dealing with problem gambling among adults by stopping them doing it as children?'' That is where this Bill is heading, and it will get there in the not-too-distant future.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. She made it in her opening speech, too. The problem is that people can interpret the clause in exactly that way.

Richard Caborn: The reason for the clause is that category D machines are the only machines to which no age limit applies. All the other categories are covered by an age limit. I am not saying that there is a valid argument for an age limit, but there might be one in future because of people's concerns, so we want to take reserve powers to introduce an age limit. Category D is the only category that does not have an age limit. Those powers do not apply to all machines, because the other categories of machine already have an age limit of 18. Category D machines do not have an age limit and therefore there is a concern. We can examine the evidence.
 I want to ensure that the following is on the record. The trigger for using the power in clause 56 is better evidence of harm, available prevalence studies and other research, and advice from the gambling commission. There will be a lot of opportunity for people to put forward their evidence. This afternoon, we have heard a great defence of the archaic owners and not a balanced argument about harm to children. We are trying to put forward a balanced argument that involves transparency, consultation and the evidence base. That is why we have put these measures in the Bill. I am sure that nobody in the Committee would deny that where there is evidence to show that harm is being done, Governments should act. 
Bob Russell (LD) rose-

Peter Pike: Order. The Minister cannot give way.

Malcolm Moss: That was a fairly long intervention from him.
 We have not said that we are not concerned about harm to children; we have said that there is no evidence about that. The Minister quoted only one individual as producing evidence that there was any harm. Let us get this straight: we are not against measures to prevent harm to children, whether category D machines or any other machines are involved.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rare that young children are seen in taxi booking offices late at night and that an age restriction on the use of machines in fish and chip shops would answer the concerns that the Minister has just expressed?

Malcolm Moss: The key is supervision. I am not going down that road because I can see that there is an argument in terms of protecting children from harm; in places where there is some supervision we at least have some control over what is going on. That is not a problem. I was trying to suggest to the Minister that we are not arguing against the Government's motives, but we are saying clearly that the clause, because it is specific to age limits and category D machines, strikes at the heart of 960 business in this country, which employ 8,500 people. If the age limit on category Ds is changed, they are wiped out at a stroke, and there should not be that focus in a clause. Anyone buying or selling a business might see that, and it would raise massive uncertainty. For a considerable time, nobody will buy one of those businesses while the clause is still in place.
 The Minister and the Government have, at a stroke, devalued the balance sheets of 960 businesses. That is the point that we are trying to get across. There is no problem about having reviews or about research. However, the matter should be couched in a different way—one that does not focus everyone's attention on something simmering under the surface in terms of harm and category D machines. The evidence is not there. By all means reserve the power, but do not focus it in the way that is currently being done.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to chide the Minister for seeking to suggest that Opposition Committee members are not interested in protection—of course, all Opposition Committee members are, just as Government Committee members are.
 The Minister is keen on evidence. Can the hon. Gentleman help me and tell me where there are comparable powers for the Secretary of State to intervene and prevent any further category A machines or to remove category A machines from regional casinos where the evidence demonstrates that they are causing harm? Surely, there ought to be a comparable power.

Malcolm Moss: That is the point that I was making. We ought to take a holistic view, and there should be a clause that says that the Government will revisit the issues about all of these machines and their operation in all circumstances.

Julie Kirkbride: Is it not a simple fact that the Government will not re-examine the number of category A machines in the big regional casinos because they are the Government's great white hope for all this investment? They have been bedazzled by the idea of all these new casinos. What they seek would not be forthcoming because they would create among the regional casinos the same uncertainty that they are creating for the smaller arcade by this provision.

Malcolm Moss: That is a valid point. However, uncertainty has certainly been created in those markets that deal with regional casinos. People thought that they would have two, three, four, 10—somebody told me yesterday that they were in the market for 12 casinos. However, now there will be only eight in total. A massive amount of uncertainty has been created. So be it; the Government have decided to go down that road. We were arguing for a trial—a pilot scheme—to test out the impact of category A machines.

Richard Caborn: For the sake of completeness and to allow the debate to go ahead with the facts, I should say that the power to change category, in terms of restrictions on machines, comes under clauses 163 and 220.

Malcolm Moss: In that case, why do we need clause 56 as well? I rest my case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Order. I want to give a little guidance to the Committee. I recognise that an important issue of principle has been debated, but I have to focus Committee members' minds on the fact that we need to reach clause 218 by 5.30 pm on Thursday this week. The Chair does not have the power to determine on relative merits or importance what issues should be before the Committee. That is for the Committee and Members taking part in the debate. However, I have to have mind to the stage of the proceedings agreed to in the programme order.
 As I do not know what time the Committee is to finish this evening, I should say that if we go beyond 5.30 pm I shall take a comfort break at some stage. I give that guidance in the hope that we will not need to take such a break. However, the power of deciding when we have a break is in my hands if I do not know when we are going to finish. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee, and focuses minds.

Clause 49 - Employment for lottery or football pools

Amendment made: No. 29, in clause 49, page 22, line 15, after 'lottery', insert— 
'(other than a lottery which forms part of the National Lottery)'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Employment in casino, &c. Amendment made: No. 235, in clause 52, page 23, line 4, leave out—

'in reliance on the casino premises licence.' 
and insert— 
'for the provision of facilities for gambling.'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Amendment made: No. 30, in clause 53, page 23, line 20, at end insert— 
', or 
 (c) a lottery which forms part of the National Lottery.'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 54 and 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Age limit for Category D gaming machines

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Penalty

Amendment made: No. 159, in clause 59, page 24, line 33, at end add— 
 ''( ) In the application of subsection (1) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.''.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill 
 Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Nature of licence

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 61, page 25, line 26, leave out third 'A' and insert 'B'.
 The amendment is very simple. It is one of a string of amendments and its argument is that, as we have no research evidence to convince us that category A machines will either provide enormous regenerative benefits or lead to a significant increase in gambling problems, we do not bother to introduce them into the country. 
 In earlier exchanges, particularly our rather abortive discussion about clause 7 and the proliferation of regional casinos, the Minister gave a clear assurance that he would table amendments that would stop a proliferation in the pilot period. I assume that we will receive confirmation before too long, but we understand that there will be a limit of only eight regional casinos. During the discussions, I asked the Minister whether he would put a similar cap on the proportion of category A machines in the regional casinos. 
 Bearing in mind that the Government have already said that the industry has advised them that only 10 per cent. of category A machines are likely to be in a regional casino out of a maximum of 1,250, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to put a cap of 10 per cent. on them. I would prefer none at all, but given that I have not received an assurance about a proposed cap, I ask the Committee to listen to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Malcolm Moss: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where the figure of 10 per cent. came from. Was it in the debate on Second Reading? From my contact with those involved, I think that 10 per cent., or whatever, would constitute unlimited pay-outs and the rest would still be category A machines.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman asked me where that information comes from, but I cannot tell him. However, the Government say that they have it. My conversations with a wide range of organisations lead me to believe that nobody really knows the answer—but the Government do.
 My point is simple. These are highly addictive machines that will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in problem gambling in this country as people 
 seek to chase their losses. The current chairman of the Gaming Board has referred to such machines as having 
''special dangers . . . because of their potentially addictive characteristics.'' 
The Government discussed the introduction of fixed-odds betting terminals with the bookmakers, which were initially going to be similar, but decided not to do so because of real concerns, and clear limits were placed on them with a maximum pay-out of £500 for a single transaction. 
 The Government recognised the dangers of unlimited pay-out machines in discussions with the bookmakers, but they do not seem to accept the problems in relation to regional casinos. I should like to see whether the Minister has something interesting to tell us about a planned limit, the rejection of any category A machines, a limit on the maximum pay-outs, or anything like that.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is right about category A machines, which have the high pay-outs. The operators run around 10 per cent. and they determine what the pay-outs will be and whether they want more, or fewer, pay-outs from their machine. They must have the input before the output. If the output were one big prize, they would want a lot more input. That is proven not just for category A machines, but for category B machines—with the £2,000 prize—because the pay-out is limited and therefore there are more pay-outs. That is just part of the marketplace. It is not a Government statistic; it is a reality of operation. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably know that from speaking to some of the operators.
 On amendment No. 5, the Bill states that category A machines will be permitted in regional casinos only, which will offer a mixture of gambling and other leisure activities. Of course we need to make sure that category A machines are carefully regulated in the public interest. This category will be subject to controls over things such as speed of play and on-screen information and to stringent standards of supply, maintenance and, for the first time in British law, manufacture. However, not permitting category A machines would undermine the modernising principles of the Bill and deny customer choice. There is a market for machine gambling, subject to the tight controls that we are placing on the machines. 
 If category A machines could not be offered as part of the British gambling package and experience, it is likely that casino operators—be they British or from overseas—would be far less inclined to make the substantial investment necessary to set up regional casinos. In turn, that would mean that the potentially significant benefits from regeneration, to which several hon. Members referred, and job creation would be lost. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: I am staggered by the Minister's response. He tells us that people want customer choice, and therefore we have the unlimited-prize category A machines, but makes no reference at all to his thoughts about what impact that might have on problem gambling. When he talks about customer choice and says that if there were not unlimited-prize machines, investors would be unlikely to come in and generate regional casinos, there is no thought given to the existing British industry, which is desperately concerned about the uneven playing field that is being created.
 I am surprised and disappointed. However, Mr. Pike, you will have noted that we have had a relatively brief debate at this stage and no doubt there will be an opportunity to return to this issue at a later stage, because amendments have been tabled. Bearing in mind that I wish to return to this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 62 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Application

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 214, in page 27, line 31, after 'activity', insert
'according to criteria set forth in a statement to be issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the criteria for prescribing different conditions to different classes of activity, but procuring that such regulations shall not unfairly discriminate between operators of such different classes of activity or consumers of such activities'.
 This is a probing amendment, asking the Minister to make different provisions for applications to authorise different classes of activity. It should be clear that the Bill is not intended to discriminate between different types of activity.

Richard Caborn: There is a lot of sense in the reasoning behind the amendment. A regulation about procedure that discriminated unfairly would be wrong. However, the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to ensure that any regulation that she makes under the clause is fair to operators and consumers alike. In making regulations under this clause, which concerns the procedure for licensing applications, we must be able to set different procedures for different licences. That is the only way in which we can deliver tailored regulations for different parts of the industry. Nobody would want us to do otherwise. We would take a different approach only where one was warranted. We must always act reasonably and rationally in exercising statutory powers. Any regulation should be subject to proper criticism and would be defective if we departed from those principles. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that what he fears will not result from regulations made under the clause and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am happy with the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Consideration of application: general principles

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'have regard to' and insert 'follow'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 216, in page 27, line 37, at end insert
'provided that such opinion shall be reasonable and formed after considering only information which is directly relevant to the granting of the application,'. 
No. 217, in page 27, line 38, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 4 and insert 
'ensure that gaming machines granted in respect of the licensed activities are in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State,'. 
No. 218, in page 28, line 9, at end insert 
'provided that such other circumstances are relevant to the proposed licensed activity'. 
No. 219, in page 28, line 26, leave out subsection (5). 
 No. 220, in page 28, line 35, leave out subsection (7). 
 No. 221, in clause 69, page 29, line 24, at end insert 
'relevant to the licensed activity'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment is an attempt to strengthen the wording of the clause, and amendment No. 216 would ensure that the commission took into consideration only information that was relevant in the context of the application.
 We tabled amendment No. 217 because the clause refers to the commission making a determination regarding the suitability of a gaming machine, but clause 220 provides that the Secretary of State should make regulations defining classes of machine and the premises on which each is to be used. It should not be possible for the commission to reach a view contrary to that of the Secretary of State. 
 Amendment No. 218 relates to the fact that the clause allows the commission to have regard to any other circumstances. We feel that that is too broad, and it would be inequitable if the commission could have regard to circumstances that were not relevant to the licensed activity. 
 Amendment No. 219 would delete subsection (5), and amendment No. 220 would delete subsection (7). We are making the point that clause 220 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations. We do not want there to be any conflict between what the Secretary of State determines and what the commission can do.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman proposes in this group several amendments designed to limit the way in which the commission will take decisions when granting licences. I could have sympathy with some of
 them, were it not for the fact that the Bill already achieves their objectives. I fear that others could undermine the cohesive regulatory structure that we are trying to put in place for gaming machines.
 On amendment No. 215, I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his formulation ''to follow'' is better than ''to have regard to''. We think that the clause places the commission under the appropriate duty, which is to have regard to the licensing objectives. They are, after all, objectives. The commission must keep them constantly in mind when taking decisions, but I cannot agree that the amendment achieves anything better than what we have currently in the clause. 
 On amendments Nos. 216, 218 and 221, I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the risks of the commission taking damaging decisions on irrelevant grounds. I can assure him that nothing like that is promoted by the Bill. The commission should have regard only to relevant information and consider only pertinent facts. It must give reasons for all its decisions, and if any operator is unhappy it can appeal the commission's decision to the tribunal or even apply for a judicial review. I also have every confidence that the commission, like other statutory regulators, will be alive to its duties under public law. Therefore, I cannot see that these amendments would add anything to the Bill. 
 Finally, on amendments Nos. 217, 219 and 220, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his concerns on this matter. Part 10 sets out a clear regime for the categorisation of gaming machines, and for the Secretary of State to make regulations about how those machines must operate. That will cover matters such as the percentage of stakes that must be returned as prizes and the display of information on the machine. 
 We will debate part 10 in due course, but it is not the be-all and end-all of machine regulation. There must be a role for the commission, so that it can ensure, when granting an operating licence, that the machines that an operator proposes to use have been sourced from a licensed supplier. The commission must be able to authorise particular varieties of games on machines as suitable for particular operators. That is what the powers in clause 66 are designed to secure, yet the amendments seek to remove them. In our view there is no contradiction between clause 66 and part 10 and no risk of dual regulation. 
 The commission and the Secretary of State are each given their own tasks by the Bill. The amendments try to change that split in a way that would undermine the commission's ability to regulate machines properly. I should add that they would also prevent the commission from regulating other gambling equipment, such as gaming tables, and mechanised cash bingo equipment, which would be very unfortunate. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for his assurance that there would not be a conflict here through dual regulation. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 27, line 42, at end insert
'and
(e) shall only issue an operating licence for a casino following an affirmative vote in a local referendum.'.
 The amendment is designed to explore what plans the Government have to consult the public on the location of casinos. We are still waiting to hear the Government's views on where the eight regional casinos that they will allow to proceed should be located, but they often say that a decision should be based on the public consent of the people living in the area as well as the wider view of where the Government would like casinos to be developed. They should therefore give the public a real opportunity to make a decision on the location of casinos and a real chance to say yes or no to casino development in their area, and there can be no better way of doing that than by local referendum. 
 I can imagine that referendums are not quite as popular in the Labour party as they once were. That is understandable, and Opposition Members take some pleasure in it, but the Government have pressed hard for referendums in a variety of contexts throughout the United Kingdom. If they mean what they say, which is that local people should be able to determine whether they want a regional casino, local people should be asked directly. I am sure that as a constituency MP, Mr. Pike, you, like all of us, are aware of the great frustration in this respect. People feel that although they are technically being consulted on a decision, they do not really have a voice in the final decision, and that the quangocrats take the wider decisions on behalf of communities and society. 
 No fully tested way of engaging with the public has been developed, so only a local referendum could constitute proper direct consultation with the electorate. What I am referring to also happens in America. In the recent presidential election, a great number of states had referendums at the same time on allowing changes to gaming laws. Coming from where I do on this issue, I was pleased that certainly one and perhaps most of them told the local legislatures that they did not want such gaming to proceed in their areas. It seems to me that a local referendum is a good way of truly engaging with local people in the way that the Government have suggested. I am talking about asking local people whether they would like a regional casino in their town or area. I would be grateful if the Government explained their views on the matter.

Richard Caborn: I shall try to explain the Government's position. I am happy to accept the spirit of what the hon. Lady is saying. New casinos, particularly regional casinos, will likely be significant developments in any local authority area. Ample opportunity for proper public consultation is therefore essential, and the Bill provides that. When a licensing authority proposes its
 licensing policy, it will be required to consult members of the public in its area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave that pledge on Second Reading, and we shall table amendments to that effect in good time before the Committee considers part 18.
 The licensing authority will also have to give people who live close to any new development the right to make representations. The same will apply to businesses whose interests might be affected by the casino proposals. Given the likely size and impact of regional casino development in particular, there are bound to be many people and businesses in the licensing authority area who will be able to make representations. If they make representations, they can insist on a public hearing before the licensing committee or licensing board. 
 Local authorities already have wide powers to consult the local population, and we will make them wider through improvements to the Bill. They can hold public consultation and forum meetings. The Bill requires local authorities to hold public hearings if people want them and to provide opportunities for local opinion to be heard. 
 A requirement for a local referendum would push the issue a little too far. We elect our local councillors to take difficult decisions about education, transport and the environment on our behalf. There is no doubt that casinos raise difficult issues—nobody denies that—but to resort to a referendum would not do justice to the skills and expertise of the councillors up and down this land. Because of the safeguards already in the Bill, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for the Minister's response and to some extent I accept that it is for local councillors to determine difficult matters. However, with a view to returning to this issue as and when the Government reveal their own thoughts on it, I point out that local councillors are likely to be offered significant inducements to accept casinos in the form of help local council tax or other services, so there is a case for asking people more widely whether they want casinos. On that note of caution, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 - Procedure

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in clause 69, page 29, line 36, after 'applications', insert
''which may not be delegated to local authorities,''.
 This is a probing amendment. Clause 69 refers to the procedure in making an application to the commission for a licence. Subsection (4) refers to clause 22, which sets out the commission's policy. The amendment seeks to make it clear that
''the delegation of functions in relation to applications'', 
as set out in subsection (4)(a), should not be made to local authorities. It may be that the commission and the Government have no intention of doing that, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister's assurances that some of those functions will not be delegated back to local authorities.

Richard Caborn: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary. There is no possibility that the commission could delegate its powers to the local authority under clause 69 or any other clause. If it did so, it would be acting outside its powers. The Bill maintains a clear distinction: the commission licenses operators, whereas the job of licensing premises is for local authorities in England and Wales, and for licensing boards in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's amendment covers an important point, but I can advise him that the risk that he fears does not arise. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am more than satisfied with the Minister's assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - General conditions imposed by Commission

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 229A, in clause 71, page 30, line 22, at end insert
''provided that such conditions may not unfairly or unreasonably grant another class a competitive advantage''.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 233A, in clause 74, page 31, line 32, at end insert 
''provided that such a condition may not unfairly or unreasonably discriminate between different types of gambling activities''. 
No. 234A, in clause 75, page 32, line 32, at end add— 
 ''(10) No condition referred to in this section may have the effect of reasonably or unfairly granting an unfair advantage to the operators or consumers of a particular gambling activity or to an operator of one gambling activity compared with another operator of the same activity. 
 (11) The power to attach such conditions shall be the subject of a statement made by the Secretary of State after due consultation with those referred to in section 22(5) (b) to (f).''. 
No. 241, in clause 104, page 48, line 7, after 'activity', insert 'in a non-discriminatory manner'.

Don Foster: I give the Minister advance notice that if he gives the same assurance that he gave in response to the amendments to clause 65, I would be persuaded to withdraw my amendment.
 The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that it should be expressly required that the commission acts in a way that does not discriminate unfairly between different classes of gambling activity. It must be clear that any policy decision in respect of conditions does 
 not unfairly distort the gambling market and should be subject to consultation and to a statement made by the Secretary of State. 
 The power to attach conditions is extremely broad and, as currently drafted, it is unclear under what circumstances individual conditions can be attached or on what grounds such conditions might be challenged. It is therefore essential that such a fundamental power is clearly described in a statement by the Secretary of State after consultation with key stakeholders. 
 I shall give the Minister one example of the imbalance that currently applies. Fixed-odds betting terminals are allowed in betting shops, but not in the 134 casinos in this country. The amendments seek to ensure that similar imbalances will not occur in the future.

Richard Caborn: The amendments seek to ensure that the commission and the Secretary of State act reasonably in imposing conditions on operating licences and will avoid anti-competitive effects. Both parties will clearly wish to do that. It would be perverse for them to act otherwise, and if they did so, they would be open to legal challenge in the usual way.
 It is not the function of conditions imposed by the commission or the Secretary of State to give rise to anti-competitive effects, but different circumstances and different types of gambling may demand different treatment. That may be necessary, not to affect competition, but to protect the public. As we share the objective of protecting the public, we should not accept the amendments. 
 Although operating licences are generally to be of an indefinite duration, clause 104 allows the commission to decide that certain types of operating licences may have a limited duration. Amendment No. 241 would allow the commission to behave in a non-discriminatory and reasonable manner, and that is clearly right. The commission will be required to publish the reasons for any limit on duration as part of its policy for licensing and regulation under clause 22. In addition, the commission will be constrained by normal rules of public law. Any arbitrary use of its powers may result in a decision being challenged by judicial review. That should provide the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Don Foster: The Minister has been inordinately helpful, and in the light of his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - General conditions: procedure

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 230A, in clause 72, page 30, line 38, leave out 'in the Commission's opinion'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 300, in clause 72, page 31, line 1, leave out 'such of'. 
 No. 231A, in clause 72, page 31, line 1, leave out 
'as the Commission thinks appropriate (if any)'. 
No. 244, in clause 112, page 51, line 41, leave out 'the Commission thinks that'. 
 No. 245, in clause 112, page 51, line 43, leave out 'it thinks that'.

Don Foster: As ever, seeking to be helpful, I say to the Minister that if he were to give reassurances similar to those that he gave to the Committee in response to amendments to clause 24, I might be minded to seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment. However, the amendments attempt to remove the subjectivity of the persons whom the commission is to consult before specifying and imposing conditions to operating licences, and aim to ensure that an objective test is applied to revocation.

Richard Caborn: I wanted to say, ''I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a moment ago'', but I dare not do that.
 The hon. Gentleman is seeking clarity about the industry representatives that should be consulted on general conditions that could be attached to an operating licence. Clearly, when the commission is proposing the condition relating to a specific part of the industry, it will consult those industry representatives. If it is proposing a condition that will affect all operating licences, it will have to consult a wider range of representatives. However, the clause already provides for that. 
 On amendments Nos. 300 and 231A, I am more than happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. Conditions on operating licences are an important part of the regulatory structure and could well involve significant costs for the gambling business. However, it would be an excessive burden for the commission always to be required to consult the Secretary of State, local authorities, the police, gambling businesses and the public. Some conditional licences will address minor or purely technical matters, where wide consultation would not serve any great purpose. 
 I am happy to confirm that the Government will expect the commission to consult widely when it considers new conditions. The Gaming Board, which will form the nucleus of the gambling commission, has an excellent relationship with the industry, and we have no reason to assume that that will not be the case in the future. 
 Turning to amendments Nos. 244 and 245, the Bill provides for a range of circumstances in which the commission may revoke an operator's licence. The need for that power is indisputable, but the commission should use it only in particular circumstances, arising from a review of an operator's licence and the conditions for suspension or revocation. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on the matter, but perhaps I can provide some reassurance: the circumstances in which a review may 
 take place are set out clearly in clause 109 and the conditions for revocation are set out in clause 113. The discretion to which the wording refers, and which troubles the hon. Gentleman, does not therefore provide a wider ground for revocation. It must be for the commission to form an opinion in each case, and no other outcome is possible. I do not think that his amendment adds anything, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Don Foster: Yet again the Minister has been inordinately helpful and, given that he has also agreed with my sentiments—that must at least merit a postcard back home to Mrs. Foster—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Individual condition imposed by Commission

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 232A, in clause 73, page 31, line 29, at end add
', provided that the principles for attaching such condition shall be set out in the statement referred to in section 22.'.
 I am not sure what the Minister is going to say to persuade me to withdraw this amendment, because it concerns the conditions that would be attached to licences. The Communications Act 2003 is much clearer about the possible nature and scope of such conditions. It is clearly important for anyone who is applying for a licence to have in advance an indication of the issues likely to be covered in the conditions attached to it. 
 It is important that we have greater clarity as proposed by the amendment, which basically says that the issues will be those covered in the statement made under section 22. Without such a statement, it would be difficult for anybody to challenge a determination, and I am certainly unclear about what would be the basis of success for any such challenge. I hope that the Government are willing to go at least some way towards accepting the amendment, as they thought that it was important to do something similar during the passage of the Communications Act.

Richard Caborn: In imposing individual conditions on operating licences, the commission will have to have regard to the licensing objectives clearly set out in clause 1 and act in accordance with the policy for licensing and regulation in clause 22. As such, amendment No. 232A is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are dealt with and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: Is the Minister assuring me that the effect of the amendment—that the conditions imposed must relate not only to the objectives in clause 1 but to
 the details in clause 22—is already covered in the Bill? He is clearly nodding, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 74 and 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Requirement for personal licence

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 281, in clause 76, page 33, line 20, leave out
'which carries (whether solely or otherwise)'
 and insert 
'the occupier of which is required, by the terms of his appointment, to take or share'. 
Clause 76 makes provision for the commission to include an operating licence condition in relation to persons who are required to hold personal licences. Government amendment No. 281 makes a small drafting change to subsection (5) to make it clearer which personnel hold management office and may therefore be required to hold a personal licence. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 235A, in clause 76, page 33, line 45, at end add—
 '(10) For the avoidance of doubt the provisions of this section shall be interpreted to be consistent with the provisions of Part 6 of this Act.'.
 The amendment addresses an issue that was raised by the scrutiny Committee in its first report, published on 25 March this year. Its purpose is to be entirely helpful to the Government, because I genuinely believe that it would make the entire clause work much better. The amendment would ensure that the clause links with part 6 regarding personal licences. It would avoid any confusion that might arise if the two sections conflict on any issue, and thus would make the provisions work more effectively and allow the commission to use its powers without legal conflict. 
 I have no doubt that the Minister will have had a detailed legal briefing on the purpose of the amendment, so rather than going into greater detail, I shall look forward to his explanation of his understanding of it and his comments on it.

Richard Caborn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about making sure that the personal licence regime in part 6 is clearly tied to clause 76. With that in mind, I have tabled amendments to clauses 120 and 121 to make it clear that part 6 and clause 76 should be read together. Those are amendments Nos. 293 to 295, which come further on in our order of consideration.
 I believe that clause 76 is clear enough as it stands, as it relates to what personal licence condition should be added to operating licences. Part 6 is clearly flagged as concerning the granting of those personal licences. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he can withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: The Minister is extremely helpful, as ever. Of course, when we come to the amendments that he mentioned, he will bear it in mind that he will have to make sure that clause 121 is tied in similarly. In light of the Minister's assurance that his later amendments will cover the same issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Credit and inducements

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 34, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
 This is rather more complicated, so I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes. 
 The clause concerns restrictions on the offering of credit and inducements by operating licence holders. Credit is defined in subsection (4) as 
''any form of financial accommodation'' 
excluding cash, cheques or debit card payments. Subsection (1) provides that the commission may attach to an operating licence a condition about the giving of credit in relation to licensed gambling activities; making offers or inducements designed to induce participation in licensed gambling activities; or being party to arrangements for inducing, permitting or assisting persons to gamble. There is a real range of issues about those opportunities. 
 For many people, the concern about problem gambling is concern about people who chase their losses. People who chase their losses—particularly, as evidence from elsewhere suggests, in relation to high-stake, high-payout machines—are the very ones likely to go in search of additional money when their funds run out. The amendment seeks to put a barrier in the way of people seeking to obtain additional credit on the premises as one means of reducing the likelihood of problem gambling.

Richard Caborn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and his reason for tabling the amendment. Operators of casino premises should certainly never offer credit, and the Bill prevents that. However, there is a significant difference between the licensee offering credit facilities and such facilities being offered by a reputable credit provider. We do not see any harm in the latter, as long as the credit provider is operating at arm's length and the licensee is not receiving any payment for that facility. It is worth noting that the practice is permitted in casinos and has been for some time. We are not aware of any problems rising from it but, if any problems emerge, the Secretary of State and the gambling commission will have specific powers to impose new requirements that better protect the consumer. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will be content and withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: I am not entirely reassured, but these are matters that a number of Committee members may wish to return to later, so, for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Return of stakes to children

Amendment made: No. 236, in page 35, line 11, after 'facilities', insert 'for gambling'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 35, line 15, after 'to', insert '(a)'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 283 and 284.

Richard Caborn: The amendments would ensure that children were still able to play some low-level games, such as the teddy cranes, in family entertainment centres; otherwise clause 79 would effectively prevent them from doing so.
 Amendment No. 284 would redefine ''prize'' to cover prizes in respect of gambling, including betting and lotteries, instead of just gaming. Without it, the clause would regulate the return of prizes to children and young persons in relation to gaming, and not betting or lotteries. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 283, in page 35, line 15, at end insert 
 ', or (b) participation in equal chance gaming at a licensed family entertainment centre.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 35, line 18, leave out from 'law' to end of line 25.
 The Committee may be getting as fed up with me as it is with the Minister. Nevertheless, I have to point out that at the moment it would be possible for a child to come into an area where they are entitled to go, and to use a gaming machine under age with no prospect of losing money, only the prospect of winning and keeping the money. It strikes me as odd that the Bill would make it possible for under-age people to come into a gaming area—obviously, one seeks to prevent them from doing that—and win money, with no requirement for that money to be returned. It makes sense to address that particular loophole, as I and many other people see it. A great deal of research has been done on the matter, and it has been referred to in a number of newspaper articles and reports. The Minister will be thoroughly briefed and I look forward to his answer.

Richard Caborn: The amendment seeks to allow operators to demand the repayment of prizes that they have paid out to children and young people. In my view that would have the unfortunate effect of rewarding operators who do not show due diligence in
 checking the age of their customers. The Government have stated time and again that operators are responsible for preventing children and young people from using their facilities. If they fail to live up to that responsibility, it is unacceptable that they should be able to recoup their losses.
 The protection of children is a key objective of the Bill. Any instance of an operator allowing children or young people to gamble could bring into question the fitness of that operator to hold an operating licence. To ensure that operators have proper systems in place, we regard it as essential that operators be restricted from reclaiming prizes from people under 18 where those prizes are won prior to the operator realising that the person was under 18. That may seem harsh to the hon. Gentleman, but we think it is the best means of requiring operators to take proof-of-age issues seriously. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. I anticipated his reply; I have even written a series of notes saying exactly what he would say, and he more or less read them out precisely. The Minister and I agree that children and gambling do not mix, and every effort must be made to prevent that. He has said that only one set of people will have to take responsibility for that: the operators. If the operators are going to do that, we must bear it in mind that there will be different circumstances. The Minister will be well aware of the difficulty of judging ages, and on occasion genuine mistakes will be made before, at a later stage, the operator is able to assess that the person is in fact under age. That would not necessarily have been a fault of the operator, and the amendment would have added an additional disincentive for an under-age person to go and do something that they should not be doing anyway, which is to gamble. I would have thought that the Minister would be more sympathetic; nevertheless I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 284, in page 35, line 29, leave out 'gaming' and insert 'gambling'. —[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I listened to the exchange between the hon. Member for Bath and the Minister, and sympathised with both sides of the argument. On one hand, the Minister is right to say that proprietors who do not check their premises properly for the entry of young persons should not benefit from the return of prizes won by children, but I also have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Is not there a possible compromise, whereby such prizes are confiscated? If children walk away with prizes, what signal are we sending—that they should try to do so again? There is merit on both sides of the argument, but I suggest that if an under-age person plays a machine and wins, their prize should be confiscated, not given to them or returned to the proprietor.

Richard Caborn: The clause requires all those with operating licences to take certain steps if they become aware that a child or young person has used their facilities to gamble. Should the licensee become aware that a child or young person is using the general facilities, they should return any money used as a stake or fee, and should not pay out any winnings or prizes. Exceptions to that rule include category D gaming machines and equal-chance prize games in family entertainment centres, which children are permitted to play. The clause also ensures that young people can continue to play lotteries and football pools. Failure of operators in that respect will lead to action for the breach of licence conditions, which is separate from any offence that may have been committed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Premises

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 285, in page 35, line 33, after '74)', insert—
'(i) requiring that the licensed activities be carried on at a specified place or class of place, (ii) preventing the licensed activities from being carried on at a specified place or class of place, or (iii)'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 286 to 288.

Richard Caborn: Clause 80 specifies the circumstances in which the commission may or may not make conditions relating to premises. Clause 87(2) provides that general betting licences may not include conditions requiring that facilities be provided at a certain place or class of place, or preventing them from being so provided. There is, therefore, a potentially unhelpful overlap between the clauses, which these amendments are designed to resolve.
 Amendment No. 285 makes further provision as to when the commission can and cannot make conditions relating to premises. Amendment No. 288 deletes subsection (2) of clause 87. 
 We are concerned that clause 61 on operating licences might be interpreted narrowly to mean that one operating licence authorises only one casino or arcade, so amendments Nos. 286 and 287 are designed to prevent that from happening, and are, I hope, a sensible improvement to the Bill. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 286, in page 35, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(2) An operating licence of any kind may authorise activities carried on in more than one place.'. —[Mr. Caborn] 
 Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - Equipment

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 299, in page 36, line 3, at end insert
'save that no such provision may limit the numbers of machines or the player positions on machines— (i)designed or adapted for the playing of bingo, and (ii)used in accordance with a condition attached to a bingo operating licence under section 73 by virtue of section 81(2)(b)'.
 The amendment is designed to prevent mechanised cash bingo units and other equipment used to play bingo from having restrictions placed on them as part of the operating licence. The decision to install such equipment should be based on the space available and player demand, and should not be the subject of licence conditions. Any issues relating to the operation of a particular game within bingo clubs is a matter with which the board should deal at industry level, not individual licence level. 
 Mechanised cash bingo, commonly known as MCB, is an interval game that is played in most bingo clubs. As its name suggests, it is played using electronic equipment rather than the traditional paper bingo ticket, and it is very popular with players. 
 The player uses a board set out on the table and a fixed set of numbers. The playing positions are linked to a central computer that randomly generates the numbers to be called, but the game is called in a normal way by a bingo caller. From a regulatory point of view, it is treated in the same way as main stage bingo. Most bingo clubs have MCB playing positions at all seats, so that those who wish to play in the interval may do so without having to sit in a particular chair or area of the club. 
 MCB has been around for 20 years. When it was first introduced, the Gaming Board wanted to monitor its influence to make sure that it did not take over from traditional main stage games. To address concerns, the industry agreed with the board to have a voluntary code of conduct to limit the number of playing positions. Over time, it became clear that it was popular with bingo players, and the limit on seating was irritating because people had to make sure that they sat in the position next to one of the terminals in order to play in the interval. The Gaming Board looked into that and acknowledged that that form of bingo created no harm. The number of playing positions available was increased, until December 2002 when the limits were removed completely. 
 The industry fears that the clause, particularly subsection (2), could give the commission powers to set limits in the operating licences on MCB terminals. There has never been any discussion with the industry about the Bill's implications, so this matter has come to it as a bit of a surprise. If the Minister can accept the amendment just to clarify the situation, that will be brilliant. If he cannot, perhaps he can give the industry an assurance that the clause is not designed in any way to catch MCB.

Richard Caborn: The Government agree with the hon. Gentleman; it says at the top of my brief that we ''agree to consider'' the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: But not agree to put it in the Bill.

Richard Caborn: No, we have not gone that far.
 We have no desire to limit the number of player positions used for MCB. We have already ensured that MCB has been taken out of the scope of the controls on gaming machines. We have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which no doubt reflect the views of the Bingo Association. 
 The amendment is not drafted in quite the way we would like, however. In particular, the references to machines could cause confusion between this clause and the controls in part 10. We also need to take care in defining the sort of equipment involved. The current wording might be a little too broad. If the hon. Gentleman is content to withdraw the amendment, I will consider the matter further, and see what can be done to give some reassurance about equipment used in bingo halls to play interval bingo games such as MCB.

Malcolm Moss: That was the most helpful reply that the Minister has given in all our sittings. I feel that victory is on the horizon, and I look forward to his coming back with some better-worded amendments so that the legislation may include the assurance that the Bingo Association seeks.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Membership

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 329, in clause 83, page 36, line 20, at beginning insert ''Subject to section 85(4),''.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 301, in clause 85, page 37, line 30, at end add— 
 '(4) A casino operating licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance or gaming machine made available at any casino operated by the licence holder unless that person is a member of that casino. 
 (5) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he— 
 (a) has applied in writing to join the casino; and 
 (b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age. 
 (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'. 
Amendment No. 137, in clause 161, page 72, line 12, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 165(6),'.
 Amendment No. 138, in clause 165, page 74, line 37, at end insert— 
 '(6) A casino premises licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance made available at the casino unless that person is a member of that casino. 
 (7) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he— 
 (a) has applied in writing to join the casino, and 
 (b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age. 
 (8) For the purposes of subsection (7) satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'. 
New clause 12—Proof of identity— 
 'Proof of identity will be required before any person can gain access to areas where casino games or Category A gaming machines are played by— 
 (a) a photographic ID in the form of a passport or driving licence; 
 (b) a form of ID showing proof of home address; 
 (c) any other requirement as set out by the Commission.'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendments deal with membership—perhaps identity is a better term—for people who will be using casino facilities in the future. The present law states that anyone entering a casino to participate must be a member. We also have the 24-hour rule that people cannot join and immediately start playing the tables.
 It is considered that membership or identity needs to be retained in future for all casinos, especially the new regional casinos. We know from discussions with those who wish to invest in the new regional casinos that, without branding them, American investors, in particular, are wholly against any form of membership. They argue that they need so many people to come through the doors of the regional casinos—20,000 over a weekend is the target. They said that they could not possibly cope with dealing with membership applications for such a large number. 
 Regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 from the second EU directive on money laundering states: 
 ''A person who operates a casino by way of a business in the United Kingdom must obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities.'' 
At other times, è1,000 has been mentioned in respect of money laundering, which is about £700, and it has been said that the matter of identity would kick in when someone had gambled or perhaps won that sum—I am not sure which way round it is. In any event, a threshold figure was mentioned. If my sources are correct, the regulation that I quoted means that all people playing in a casino must supply ID. 
 It is important that anyone utilising a casino in future should provide ID. It will help the operators to know their clients. The existing operators to whom we have been talking and those who intend to come into the industry if they are lucky enough to win one of the franchises insist that the last thing they want are problem gamblers coming through their doors. It is important therefore that they know the individuals 
 who play their machines, rather than the gaming tables, so they can do something about those who are causing problems not only for the casino, but who have difficulties in their private lives. 
 Counselling in casinos is a positive course of action for problem gamblers in America, and American investors want to replicate that in regional casinos here. They want the gambling commission to ensure that proper accreditation and counselling schemes are part of the whole scenario of regional casinos. We are certainly much in favour of that. However, how could we offer a counselling service when the identity of the individuals is not known? 
 We learned from further discussions with an operator of casinos in South Africa that to play category A machines a person uses a magnetic card, which is given to him as he enters the casino. The person cashes in money and receives the card to play the machines. The card has the person's ID on it, comprising name, address and, I suppose, a photograph. It is a form of ID, so that the casino operators know who is playing which machines, who is gambling heavily and who is potentially going into loss. 
 We were told that there has never been a problem in administering that system and that operators would be happy to implement it in the United Kingdom if they were lucky enough to be successful in gaining a regional casino franchise. That is not a problem. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Government said the amendments were perfectly acceptable. We were close to that position with a previous amendment, so perhaps we can edge a little nearer, score a bulls-eye and hit the jackpot.

Nick Hawkins: The Moss amendment

Malcolm Moss: I cannot claim that I wrote the amendment, but never mind. It would be helpful to know the Government's views on membership, and whether they see that as an integral part of the operation of regional casinos. Membership is already present in the UK industry. I am sure that additional large and small casinos will develop.

John Pugh: There are two, clearly distinct, ideas: membership and identity. Does the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between the two? Are there arguments for one that do not apply to the other?

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that I make any massive distinction. If a person provides ID to a casino operator on their first visit, that could be encrypted on their membership card. Once that has been done, it has been done. Every time that person went to the casino, they would show their card on entry. I do not see a problem with that.
 No one has suggested to me that there should be vetting to ascertain whether people are appropriate to gamble in the casino, nor would I go along with 
 such a suggestion at this time. Some private clubs in London might have a vetting procedure—a blackball procedure—for people who were not welcome at the club, but such a club would be private. We are talking about public amenities; the general public will utilise the regional casinos and visit them to gamble. We make no distinction about the individual, but the individual's identity is important. Membership cards are largely irrelevant; identity is the critical factor.

Clive Efford: When I tabled new clause 12, no other amendments on membership had been tabled; I thought that that was extraordinary. There is no avoiding some form of membership scheme. Whatever way one looks at it, the EU directive requires that people playing at gaming tables should give some form of ID. The Government said on Second Reading that they would require people who gambled sums in excess of £750 to provide ID. If we are to record how much somebody has spent, that person should make their identity known at an early stage—otherwise, there would be no way to record how much they had spent.
 We need some form of regulation, and not just about money laundering. We are getting rid of the 24-hour cooling-off period, and I can accept that. However, we have to consider why it was there. People could be out for a celebration and have drunk some alcohol. They could slip into a gambling establishment and make mistakes by gambling too much or indulging too much in gaming machines or tables. Some form of membership system would require them to make a conscious decision about going into an establishment, being a member and engaging in those games. We have overlooked that important aspect, on which the Bill is silent. 
 In spite of the Minister's generous mood this afternoon—he has indicated that he will accept one amendment—I do not expect him to accept my new clause as it is worded, although I may say that I worded it expertly. However, I should like him to give the matter further consideration, particularly in light of the fact that the industry itself seems to be suggesting, to some degree, that it would like some form of membership.

Don Foster: I am sure that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has expertly drafted his new clause, although I point out to him that I think that it contains the error of describing the new body as the gaming, rather than the gambling, commission.
 Notwithstanding that, I entirely agreed with him when he said that identity is the critical factor. The discussion about membership is probably taking us in the wrong direction. For the purposes of preventing money laundering and tracking problem gamblers to ensure that they are given the help, support and advice that they need, the crucial issue is that a system of identification is required. 
 Hon. Members have referred to the second European directive on money laundering. I am sure that those who have are well aware that consultations are already taking place on the third directive. It is my understanding that, so far, those discussions do 
 nothing to suggest that the requirement on identity will be removed. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendments.

Richard Caborn: I recognise that the amendments are well intentioned, but the Government will not be able to agree to them. A key aim of the Bill is to modernise the laws on casinos by removing unnecessary restrictions, such as the membership rule. While nothing in the Bill stops casinos from having membership if they want it, we do not consider it necessary to impose that obligation upon them.
 I agree that we should protect the industry's integrity and also tackle problem gambling. The Bill contains many protections to secure the world-class reputation of casinos and to prevent problem gambling in Great Britain. In the context of the improved protections, we do not think that the compulsory imposition of membership requirements on casinos serves any real regulatory purpose. To achieve the aims to which I referred, we do not need the amendments and the detailed requirements that they propose about the identification of customers by photographic ID, name and address.

John Pugh: The Minister makes a point about the regulatory need, but he also made a point about the need to monitor gambling behaviour. There will be an assessment of whether the Bill alters people's gambling behaviour and if we simply do not know who is gambling at casinos, how can we conceivably do that?

Richard Caborn: As I said, there are other checks and balances that go way beyond the clause in relation to problem gamblers and the concerns that hon. Members have raised.
 Casinos will be only too keen to ensure that their arrangements are effective. It will be open to the commission to include advice about supervising access to gaming areas in the guidance that it gives to licensing authorities under clause 24. That means that, if necessary, the method of checking age and the standard of supervision required can be included in the premises' licence conditions. That includes door supervision conditions. 
 There is no need to short-circuit those procedures by writing detailed requirements into the Bill. It contains a suitable, flexible framework of regulation. The amendments would make it much more rigid without adding any powers that the Bill lacks. 
 A number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed by the Bill, in particular the removal of compulsory casino membership schemes, it would be more appropriate to check the identity of customers at the financial threshold and not at the physical threshold of the premises or at some specific area of the premises. The amendments would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to the 
 area of the casino that includes gaming tables and higher value gaming machines. Anyone who went into such an area would have to go through an ID check, whether or not they were going to gamble.

Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be a requirement of the operators that people must give their identification on every occasion in the circumstances to which he referred?

Richard Caborn: I am not saying that; I am merely saying that the flexibility is there: if the operator wants to do that, it is open to them. I am not saying that that identification check should take place as a matter of course.
 The amendments would shut off the option by requiring ID checks on entry to the areas of the casino that include gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. Therefore, anybody going into such an area would have to go through identification, whether or not they were going to gamble. 
 In the Government's view that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. The first is that the requirement as to identification and verification of identity for the purpose of controlling money laundering can, and indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury that implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. Already, the second directive and regulations require ID checks and we are going on to consider the third directive as well. We cannot yet be sure what it will require. It would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed provisions in the Bill. 
 Secondly, we are not persuaded that in future it will be right to require identification on entry in all cases, even though we do so now. As I have explained, the casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos are now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than those in the present one. I need to emphasise in the strongest terms that there is no question whatever of the Government's being soft on money laundering or wanting to weaken controls as a concession to foreign companies with a view to persuading them to invest here. There might be different means by which casinos can ensure that they comply with identification requirements, taking account of the fact that risks can vary from one situation to another. 
 The amendments would create unnecessary inflexibility and would require casinos to do things in one way only. They would, for example, insist on one specific method of identification, using photographs, when it might be entirely satisfactory to verify identity in other ways. Above all, they would create inflexibility by writing into British law a requirement of identification at one specific time, whereas the directive allows greater flexibility on timing. If the amendments were accepted, future money-laundering regulations could not vary them.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister talked about a photograph. I do not see in the amendments that I have tabled any reference to a photograph; nor do I see anything in
 amendment No. 301 saying that membership should be organised on entry. It simply says that ID is required before somebody can
''participate in any casino game or other game of chance or gaming machine''. 
It does not say that one has to have ID in order to walk through the door into the casino.

Richard Caborn: The amendments would restrict movement and remove the flexibility that is in the Bill. If amendments are required because of something that is in the third directive on money laundering, we shall come back to the matter. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that the amendments should not be agreed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister did not answer my question. He made some statements, but when I asked about photographs and entry he did not reply. I do not know why he does not want to give ground on the issue, although I can think of all sorts of reasons, principally that the Americans have made it clear that they do not want him to. They have made it so clear that it has been widely trailed in the press that they want some fudging on the new directives if they can get it. No doubt the Minister will say that there is not an ounce of truth in that, but who knows?
 Most of the operators to whom we have spoken do not have a problem. The South Africans who have applied for two of the sites that I know of, and Lord Steinberg of Stanley Leisure plc, the largest British casino operator, which has a big casino in Birmingham and has made an application for Leeds, are not too fussed about identity. I do not know where the problem arises. We are talking about eight regional casinos, which will be phased in over a period. I do not see any difficulty about requiring ID. We would not ask for it on the first weekend, when 20,000 people turned up—we might not get through it all—but the South African operators have indicated that it is easily done and does not take much time. 
 We are saying not that people will have to be members to go into casinos, but that some proof of ID should be required before they start playing the machines and the games. That is all. Whether we call it membership or ID does not matter. However, if the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable, they have to accept that one has to know one's client. If operators do not know which individuals are spending—and losing—thousands of pounds, how on earth can anybody introduce a counselling scheme to help them? The casinos do not want problem gamblers; that is the worst thing that they can have. Not only do they cause difficulties inside casinos, but if news of that gets out, the casinos get a bad name and their reputations are at stake. They want to track the vulnerable and problem gamblers. The only way that I know of to do that—perhaps the Minister knows a different way—is to have some form of identification involved. Once someone has given their ID, the same piece could be used on repeat visits to the same regional casino. I do not see a problem with that system. 
 I understand partly the argument that says we do not want to be too rigid, but it is not good enough to say that the commission will perhaps deal with the issue at some future date. If the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that there is proper counselling, there must be something in the Bill to indicate that they are taking that road. To leave it to the chance element—that the gambling commission will deal with the issue—is not acceptable. 
 There is no point in pushing the issue to a vote, given the few Members who are left, but we will certainly revisit it as it is important. It may be something that the Government have to give ground on before they get the Bill through the other place—that is how important it is.

Richard Caborn: I agree about its importance, and I do not underestimate the force of the argument from the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, I refer them to clause 75, which deals with the scope of powers to attach conditions. Subsection (9) provides:
 ''A condition may make provision about . . . establishing the identity of users of facilities . . . recording the identity of users of facilities'' 
 ''restricting facilities to persons registered in respect of the facilities in advance.'' 
What I am saying is that a series of checks and balances is already in the Bill. 
 The EU second directive on money laundering carries 10 conditions, so people betting thousands of pounds could well be caught by it. We are not entirely clear about the interpretation of the third directive vis-a-vis the casinos, and we will have to come back to that later. However, we believe that the Bill is strong enough to deal with the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman raised. Verified entry in the gaming area is not the same as a membership or identity check. Verification of age is important, but that can be done by the casino operators. Again, I say that I believe we have enough checks and balances without the imposition of membership.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister was a little more helpful that time, but it is no good his referring to the fact that the word ''may'' is in the Bill because we know what it means—may or may not. The word ''shall'' would give us some comfort, and the Government should consider the point again. We are not going to get anywhere this evening, but we shall revisit the issue on Report and in the other place. The critical question of identification cannot be left to the whim of a gambling commission—it is too important.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock until Thursday 2 December at half-past Nine o'clock.